By V**er Suppression, you mean requiring people to have ID. Substantive e******ns are held every two years. In GA, if you are that broke, you can get ID either for free, or for a whopping $5. You believe, and expect anyone with two brain cells to believe that someone so incompetent that they cannot procure a free ID in two years time should be allowed to v**e on their say so. You ignore the fact that almost all of the so-called disenfranchised v**ers receive some sort of government aid that requires them to have ID suitable for v****g.
You say that having to go to the polls to v**e in person is a hardship for b****s but no one else. Alone among all the races, b****s are incapable of doing this. It is suppression to require them to do the SAME THING as everyone else.

By V**er Suppression, you mean requiring people to have ID. Substantive e******ns are held every two years. In GA, if you are that broke, you can get ID either for free, or for a whopping $5. You believe, and expect anyone with two brain cells to believe that someone so incompetent that they cannot procure a free ID in two years time should be allowed to v**e on their say so. You ignore the fact that almost all of the so-called disenfranchised v**ers receive some sort of government aid that requires them to have ID suitable for v****g.
You say that having to go to the polls to v**e in person is a hardship for b****s but no one else. Alone among all the races, b****s are incapable of doing this. It is suppression to require them to do the SAME THING as everyone else.

And why is that Blade? Has that 3.57 brain of yours ever figured that out? Do you think the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" just sits out there like a turd on a stick all by its self? King George used his freestanding army to suppress the American people so the founders, be they right or be they wrong, looking to a well-regulated m*****a, one that reports to the government, in lue of a free-standing army as the principal protection of this country. Could they fulfill that if the right to bear arms could be infringed on? No.

So the last clause is dependent on the first clause and if you had done anything with your education other than trying to achieve a lowly 3.57 you would understand that and while I think the founders were shortsighted l do understand why they were leery of a free-standing army. You conservatives however not only want a freestanding army you want the biggest and nastiest one on the planet plus you want the nastiest weapons possible for your personal use in case Liberals are ever democratically v**ed into power by the people.

So you and those like you could give an F why the second was written just so you can use it to gain the weapons of your choice even if in gaining them presents a danger to this country. So for you cons it's F the country and F the constitution. This is about you and gaining what you want not what is best for this country or anyone else who is part of it...

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/07/why-founding-fathers-would-object-todays-military/66668/
https://daytondui.com/founding-fathers-opposed-standing-army/
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-founding-fathers-feared-a-standing-army/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenceh****r/2012/07/29/both-james-madison-and-the-anti-federalists-were-right-about-standing-armies/?sh=79d8160375a0
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1495